Good info there Tuffy! I know that many scanners would save their scans at a Q of 75....some at 80. Since the "Q" wasn't the same for all programs, I decided to use the 85 setting, just in case the program was off. Viewing those jpegs saved at 75 looked fine, but I didn't know what program they used to save them with, so I stuck with my 85. I used an old version of ComPuPic, since I could do batch conversions with it. Photoshop only does one conversion at a time, plus ComPuPic made it easy to make indexes with custom backgrounds.

I used Photoshop 7....still do, even though I have CS3. This version of Photoshop still uses the 1-12 scale, so I figured that a 9, while still on the high side, is what I'd use if I didn't use Compupic.

The scanner's light bulb doesn't have the same uniform brightness across it. That means that one side of the bulb will be brighter than the other side. If you were to simply scan one part of the picture, then slide the picture over to scan the rest of it, the two halves of the picture won't match up in brightness when you try to stitch it together.

That's very useful information Dekoda. I never knew this.. However, by coincidence I have always done my double page scanning the way you advised. I just like to put the mag in the same corner, whether its the left or right page.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dekoda

. The better way to save a jpeg is with a program that uses the 1 to 100 jpeg settings. With a program like that, I use a setting of 85. This is called the "Q" or quality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dohupa

A 3Meg file at this random resolution I've picked editing the bmp file with IrfanView.

I always save my initial scans as bitmaps. When all scanning and necessary stitching is done, I batch convert using Irfanview, using a compression level of 80.

dohupa, compressing your Seka pic this way reduced it to 811KB.
And yes, it sure looks good enoug.

__________________To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Feel free to post my scans to the relevant model threads, but do give credit

Yes I agree, Photoshop is not that hard to use, but the thing is, it isn't worth spending the money to buy Photoshop if you just want to do same basic editing to scans. I tell a lot of people that. I ask them what they plan on doing to their scans, and if they say some basic editing, then I don't recommend Photoshop....that's overkill.

Photoshop can be as easy or as hard as you want it to be. I found that out when I first started using it. I was intimidated by all of the tools, filters, palettes, etc., but I was told to just use what I needed....a bit of sharpening, cropping, resizing, etc. That's how I first started with PS. Once I got comfortable with those tools and filters, I started playing around with other tools and filters, and if I didn't understand what I was doing, I asked others in the group.

With PS, I found that you learn one thing at a time and eventually, you know a lot about it.

As for scanning at 300 dpi, well it all depends on what you want to do with the picture. If you are going to get rid of the magazine, then scanning at 300 dpi will give you the ability to print out the picture at the size it was in the magazine and retain the original sharpness of the magazine picture.

If you don't ever plan on printing the picture, then it depends on how big you want to display it on your monitor. If you plan on resizing the picture to a given size....like 800 x 600, or 1024 x 768 or 1600 x 1200, etc. then you need to scan it at a dpi that when re-sized to one of those dimensions, will give you a picture that is 96 dpi (some people use 72, but I like 96.), otherwise you will lose some detail.

When I save the picture, I save it as either a Photoshop Document (PSD file) or as a TIFF. Bitmaps are good also, I just have always used the other two.

Looking at your scan, it looks good. I was wondering, did you place a black sheet of paper on the back side of the page when you scanned it? I notice some bleed through in the scan. Usually placing a black sheet of paper behind the scan when you scan it will eliminate that, but not always. Sometimes the paper they use is so thin that nothing will prevent bleed through.

Note the (Gaussing?, i'm guessing) pattern on the walls, which i have seen before, yet have found a way around.. I just don't recall how? My output res is 600 dpi. Maybe i need to lower it?
Although I'm actually wondering if the paper was chosen to make it difficult to scan. It's sort of a mid-sheen satin/gloss. Haven't struck this problem for a while.

Incidently, i believe this is the first time this particular picture has been posted on the net (to the best of my knowledge!)

Be nice to get it right. .

Forgive my sad amatuer attempt, esteemed associates.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to blondifan For This Useful Post:

To reduce moiré use the descreen function of your scanner software.
In addition to that, you can shrink the images after scanning.
My scanner gives different moiré results with different resolutions. So trying a different resolution may be another option.

__________________To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Feel free to post my scans to the relevant model threads, but do give credit

To reduce moiré use the descreen function of your scanner software.
In addition to that, you can shrink the images after scanning.
My scanner gives different moiré results with different resolutions. So trying a different resolution may be another option.

Thanks. I read your earlier post and have tried descreening, with and without the Unsharp mask and at different resolutions and this is basically what I'm getting.

Guess I'll have to play with my software. I don't have Photoshop as such.
I generally just use Paint and/or my Roxio / Canon software.

Been a long time since i've had results as bad as this, which i guess leaves me wondering what i may have changed previously

I seem to have solved the problem, basically by going into all the drop down boxes in Canoscan software and setting everything on high (1200 dsi) and applying a soft filter to remove dust and scratches. Think i also applied 'soft' grain reduction. The last two steps i wouldn't normally do, but I'm happy with the results.
I haven't corrected contrast or anything. This is exactly how they scanned.

Particularly of the 2nd image, which is one of my favorites.
I've begun posting it on Blondi Bee's thread, although I've opted for posting some images seperately, generally, as i had an issue with the text on the first page.

Viola:

Edit: I do seem to have lost a little resolution by converting from bitmap to jpeg, for uploading!
"bumbling along, as bees do"

Last edited by blondifan; 01-31-2011 at 02:47 AM..

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to blondifan For This Useful Post: